Stockbrokers to the rescue

The Competition Authority won’t be pleased, and everyone else will be highly sceptical, but the three main stockbroking firms, NCB Davy and Goodbody, came together to produce a report that is worth a look (of course, it’s self-serving, they’re stockbrokers :stuck_out_tongue:)

There’s no shortage of ideas for cutting everyone else’s pay and benefits, including social welfare :imp:

The most significant part deals with the banks and gives what seems to be reasonable estimates of the capitalisation requirements. The stockbrokers’

. So, loan losses of €25bn now, and more to come depending on how things develop after 2010.

The report also gives a fair summary of the objections to a “bad bank”. It makes a sensible suggestion about the funding from the NPRF. Now that our pensions are in hock to the bank, there’s no point in the NPRF borrowing more money to support the banks:

The graph on p. 9 shows the trend in current expenditure and tax revenues. Tax revenues actually fell as a % of GNP from 1994 to 2000 and fell well below current expenditure in the late 1990s (due to tax cuts, I think). Spending climbed sharply in recent years, particularly from 2006 - 2008 while revenues nose-dived (take a bow, Brian Cowen).

Given that the report was written by a bunch of people who completely failed to predict the inevitable housing and economic slump it is not a bad report. Indeed, they do put forward a plan for righting the state’s finances that does not involve further subsidies for the construction industry.

An thats because the majority of their business probably didnt come from builders who were too busy throwing up shoeboxes and selling for extortionate prices to be bothered investing through stockbrokers and the stockbrokers were too busy giving advice to credit unions anyway. :angry:

Stockbrokers acting in the national interest - things are bad. :confused:

I’ll hold my line that the only way a bad bank should go ahead is if all banks are nationalised.

Table 1 on page 11 showing that in 2006, Public sector were getting a 49% pay premium is something that deserves attention.

Table 2 on page 15 shows where the burden of income tax falls by a selection of countries. Low paid and married seem to be the biggest beneficiaries of our tax system (relatively).

Data is completely unnormalised and as a benchmarking exercise completely flawed, look at Personal and Protective Services? 77.7% Premium? What on earth are they comparing there? Does anyone know?

Gardai vs Brinks Allied? :unamused:

That does stand out. The admin and clerical is probably the most comparable. There should be a completely open exercise to thrash this out.

If you look at the work of the gardai, there’s a good chunk that is fairly basic. Perhaps a case for introducing a lower grunt level. Something to lower the cost of the nightshift.

I don’t want to deny you your truffles, you could always go and take your chances in the private sector :smiley:

Yeah, the way to get to the bottom of this is by being relentlessly personal… Stay on topic.

I am unable to find a direct link to their site but on their 31 March 09 Wealth Management Daily they said:

Exactly . Police vs Security guards. Nobody pays security guards and policement at the same rates and I would think the differential is similar in most countries.

EG This comparison

comes from here

Then again they were quite sensible on Social Welfare, page 12 .

So basically the gubberment are borrowing money to put into the banking sector black hole :open_mouth:

Equitable pay across sectors of the economy? These stockbrokers are revolutionaries at heart :stuck_out_tongue:

Perhaps they should focus on the sector where

Oh, Look - it’s in

And here’s another revolutionary principle: **payback time ** :nin

Well I never… I’m shocked, I tell you… Shocked! 8)